Gantt v. Smith

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE W. GANTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SEWALL SMITH, Warden; ASSISTANT WARDEN WILSON; LIEUTENANT GRANT; LIEUTENANT AULU; SERGEANT LITTLE; SERGEANT CUNNINGHAM; JAKE SUTTON; SERGEANT COCOLOUGH; SERGEANT STATEN; SERGEANT PRESSBURY; BOGGS; M. ROBINSON; EMMANUAL NZEADIGHIBE, Defendants-Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; No. 94-7303 WALTER E. BLACK, JR.; JOSEPH HAAS; CLARA GOULD; KIM BERGER, Attorney, In their official and individual capacities; RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Senior Commissioner; PURNELL, Chief of Security, Individually and in their official capacities; CAPTAIN PORGUESE; CAPTAIN LEE; BIG STEWART; LITTLE STEWART; PAUL KNIGHT; ANDREWS; A. C.; MOBY; WALLACE; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; GLENN BELL, Assistant Attorney General, Individually and in their official capacities, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-93-3765-PJM)

Submitted: January 18, 1996

Decided: February 5, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gantt v. Smith, No. CA-93-3765-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 27, 1994). We dispense with oral

2 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres- ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Judge Luttig would impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial process.

AFFIRMED

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, concurring:

Appellant has filed thirty-two appeals in this court betwen Septem- ber 26, 1991, and today. I would impose sanctions against Appellant for abuse of the judicial process.